Quinn v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Filing 42

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting Report and Recommendations re 39 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 7/27/12. (ds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD L. QUINN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:11-cv-00268
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

ROBIN KNAB, WARDEN,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the June 28, 2012 Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers. (ECF No.
39.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and further recommended that to the extent
Plaintiff seeks to assert a retaliation claim, that it be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and that Mr. Free be dismissed as a Defendant.
The Report and Recommendation specifically advises the parties that the failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the Report results in a “waiver of the
right to de novo review . . . by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment
of the District Court.” (Report and Recommendation 16, ECF No. 39.) The time period for
filing objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. The parties have not objected
to the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections have

been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the Report
and Recommendation. (ECF No. 39.) Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The defendants
are granted judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff’s equal protection claim. The motion is denied
as to Plaintiff’s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First
Amendment claims, and he may proceed on those claims. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert a
retaliation claim, that claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and Mr. Free is DISMISSED as a Defendant in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/ James L. Graham
James L. Graham
United States District Judge
Date: July 27, 2012

2